piclist 2002\08\21\170717a >
Thread: Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material?
www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=fabricating+global
picon face BY : Mark Perri email (remove spam text)



Jim,

>Ahhh - A joint statement. Beats a good data set taken
>over 15 decades any day ...

I'd say it beats one non-peer reviewed website.

>Pick just about ANY US climatologocal staion and the
>trend is DOWNWARD.

I pick pretty much the entire US except for the northeast.

You should check the records from NOAA and NCAR
collated at:

http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/climate/trends/temperature.html

I think it gives a good picture.  In the northeast there is
cooling due to sulfate aerosols.

Also if you go to your site and pick calculate
trend but include all stations, you'll see an increase of
about 0.8 deg C from 1880 on.
http://www.co2science.org/temperatures/ghcn.htm

>The burdern of proof still lies with those that seek some
>sort of 'control' for the purposes of 'saving' the whole
>lot of us based on the outputs of 'models' whose accuracy,
>at present, doesn't jibe with globally measured results.

Current models do actually reproduce the current climate
data.  Where are you getting that they don't?

Can't you see that policy unfortunately follows economics,
not science?

>And some Greenpeace members being avowed communists
>or socialists discredits their efforts? (Only if their datais
>bogus or contrived!)

Of course not.  I'm just saying you need to look at the
motivation behind the people that present these results.  Also,
as I said I'm not looking at greenpeace for any of this data, but
instead a huge community of atmospheric scientists.

>None of the usual lay 'global warmers' seem to attribute
>ANY warming due to the sun. That is my point.

Atmospheric Scientists do.

>Can't REALLY be called "Global Warming" then can it?
>Disingenuous on a large scale I'd say ...

As I said, the global average temperature is rising.

[about the asian brown cloud]
>Oh brother!
>I wonder WHAT these mortality figures were BEFORE!
>Sounds like a case of fitting one's "cause celeb"
>to the facts ...

I'm not sure what you're talking about.  Maybe you didn't
read my post very carefully.  It seems like you're thinking
I'm attributing the pollution to global warming?  The pollution
is a separate issue.  I'm just saying that it is actually
reducing the temperature increase that would be seen in
Asia right now, but that's not to suggest that global
warming is not happening in Asia or that pollution is good.


>An increase in CO_sub2 would seem to indicate a decrease
>a O_sub2 (no?). I breathe O_sub2 and therefore I am
>concerned (perhaps a strong word!) with it's continued
>availability.

I don't think you understand how much air there is in the
atmosphere.  CO2 is at about 370 ppm now.  O2 is 20%.
Any change in oxygen from O2 to CO2 isn't going to
significantly decrease it (beyond the per meg level).

>BTW, I take it in your previous post that the statement "every
>single credible atmospheric scientist and publication" only
>includes *those* doctorate types and publications you agree
>with.

I've cited for you papers in Science and Nature as well as a textbook
(one of the best) on Atmospheric Chemistry.  I wouldn't
say it's those that I personally agree with, but that the
scientific community agrees with.  Unfortunately your CO2 website
is a one-sided argument and not peer-reviewed.

>It takes a temp increase (where are the italics
>when I need them!) to 'force' (introduce? inject?
>put?) that energy into the system - no?
>No temp change - no energy change - no *extra*
>energy to evaporate liquid water and create
>water vapor ...

No.  I'm not trying to be rude, but I think you should
go study global warming and how the atmosphere works.
To put it simply, the energy input to the earth comes from
the sun (mostly visible light).  The earth is warmed by the
sun and re-radiates that heat at longer wavelengths
in the infrared.  Greenhouse gases (Not just CO2, also
methane, SF6, and many others) absorb infrared radiation
and re-emit them back to the earth.  You can think of this
as effectively trapping that radiation so that it doesn't
get back out to space.

Thus the "extra energy" you're talking about is energy that is
not radiated back into space from the earth.  It
is "trapped" by the greenhouse gases.

Mark

--
http://www.piclist.com hint: The list server can filter out subtopics
(like ads or off topics) for you. See http://www.piclist.com/#topics


<5.1.0.14.2.20020821133230.00ac5ec0@uclink4.berkeley.edu>

In reply to: <018701c2494f$97ac7120$0100a8c0@piii500a>
See also: www.piclist.com/techref/index.htm?key=fabricating+global
Reply You must be a member of the piclist mailing list (not only a www.piclist.com member) to post to the piclist. This form requires JavaScript and a browser/email client that can handle form mailto: posts.
Subject (change) Is GP fabricating Global Warming evidentiary material?

month overview.

new search...